Do interventions targeting frailty improve outcomes after cardiac surgery? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frail patients have poorer cardiac surgery outcomes. Interventions targeting frailty may improve surgical recovery. This study explored interventions that specifically target frailty in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. A systematic review was conducted, searching multiple electronic databases from January 2010 to May 2022. Studies applying an intervention targeting frailty (measured using a validated tool) in adults undergoing cardiac surgery were included. Data extraction and quality assessments were undertaken by two authors. From 2726 identified papers, five studies were included in the final review. Studies varied in their definitions of frailty, methods and intervention components. All included an exercise component, but these varied in frequency, length and content. Three studies reported an improvement in frailty. This review identified that there is some evidence that frailty is improved after an exercise intervention. Further research should focus on the multifaceted nature of frailty, the degree to which frailty is reversed by interventions and the effectiveness of such interventions specifically for women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".